[Chongo]

Here is a website that is surveying US Historical Climate Network station across the US
http://www.surfacestations.org/
here is one in Tucson

About
What is the purpose of this website?

This website was created in response to the realization that very little physical site survey data exists for the entire United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface station records worldwide.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

SOMEBODY must be able to boil down what one is doing, or it's not going to get funded. Put simply, putting what you're doing simply enough for a layman to understand why it's important is crucial. This is why it's important to be able to state the building blocks of anything in simple terms; you can build up to a more complex subject with straightforward analogies and examples.

They have done that. Seriously, America is the last first-world country where the anthropogenic contribution to global climate change isn't widely accepted.

The problem is that if people who aren't experts in the field and/or not familiar with scientific methods (in particular scientific method as understood by natural sciences) who then criticize the findings based on the very simplistic explanation they have received. I'm not talking about people who want to know more, but people who `criticize.' Most of the time, the criticism can be addressed if that person goes into sufficient level of detail -- at the expense of being understood by a layman. And that's not because it is a failure of science, but simply because it's complicated.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If the learner's permit doesn't require you to behave as a scientist, then it's useless. Even the apprentice must use the scientific method, or he/she is just wandering around in the wilderness.

That's what people with a Bachelor degree should know, yes. It says that, yes, in principle, you can start working as a scientist (after some additional education). But most people don't work as scientists afterwards.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

That does not mean that such scientists are terribly productive, but when your first-semester grad student starts collecting data, doesn't he have to do it right for the entire project to go properly?

Of course, if he or she continues down that path, yes. But just because you have your learner's permit doesn't mean you know how to drive, does it? However, if you stop taking driving lessons, you needn't use your basic skills to work scientifically.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A single person came up with the site that ebuddy posted. Sure, a bunch of people bought into it being ok, but someone, probably a single person, sold them on it. And as I said, presenting data that comes from a particular locale without caveats implies that the data is representative of a fairly generic locale, not one that is affected by particularly well-known biases such as asphalt.

Again, the problem is that you assume the data from this specific location enters the calculation and alters the conclusion. Usually surface temperatures are measured by a satellite. And yes, roads absorb more heat than other material -- but that is taken into account.

Even if (according to anyone's standard) a weather station has been correctly set up, some components still may fail and give faulty data. Do you think this case hasn't been taken into account? Of the thousands and thousands of weather stations, you can be sure that some of them are defective. These are fairly straightforward questions that have been addressed.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Any person that promotes data as being valid must also provide the limits within which that data was obtained, or that data may be misinterpreted. My point was that that one measurement station should have a big, Major League Baseball-style asterisk after every one of its observations to denote the conditions under which it was obtained.

They do, taking uncertainties into account is one of the first things you learn in natural sciences. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are often even given separately. And you simply assume that this hasn't been done yet.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

We expect temperature observations at airports to be skewed by the enormous amount of concrete around them (heat sinks of any kind skew temperature readings), but non-airport observations must have their conditions stated for them to be relevant.

If the concrete belongs to the surface, then it is part of the surface whose temperature is being measured (as opposed to air temperature, of course). The tarmac doesn't alter the measurement, it changes the surface's ability to absorb heat -- which certainly influences the local weather.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I am a scientist, but not an expert on the mating rituals of the bonobo. Or on sheafs and K-theory.

You're not missing much, trust me.

Institutional science requires funding; funding requires politics & networking; politics & networking requires fitting an agenda. To say that institutional sponsorship of research goes on without an agenda is either being disingenuous or naive. I'm a scientist too, with the responsibility for allocating research dollars to other scientists, and I fight very hard to keep agendas out of it. Unfortunately, folks in climate research haven't fought as hard.

There are big bucks in wealth transfers for climate research. Kyoto is just one example. Until the big bucks are separated from it, until the research is done by folks with no vested political interest in lying, we won't know how much mankind can influence weather, if at all, or how much of the current (cooling) weather trend is natural.

John Lennon said it best: "Follow the money."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Ah, but it is only recently that the conservative side of the spectrum has even admitted that the climate is warming at all.

Wrong. They have almost without fail argued that climate change is driven primarily by natural variability. The "conservative side" is comprised of a wealth of diverse people with varying degrees of skepticism. They range from practicing scientists, to laypeople, politicians, and even those employed by the oil industry. The... I'm guessing "liberal side" (your logic) is also comprised of diverse people with varying degrees of support for the IPCC conclusion. Among them are scientists, laypeople, politicians, and even those employed by a host of green initiatives, publications, corporations, etc...

The overwhelming majority of scientists repeatedly cited as consensus authorities on manmade global warming are relatively silent. It simply follows there are those more or less passionate about the matter.

This reminds me of the backsliding by creationists to grant that "microevolution" is possible but not "macroevolution" is not--as if the distinction is significant at all.

It is clear that this has become a partisan mantle for you. It makes sense that you'd invoke the creationists' "backsliding" angle. If you're unable to acknowledge a continuum from support to dissent seeing all things as either black or white, you'd have to compartmentalize the vocal into smaller boxes to make it simpler for you. Creationists didn't coin the terms "micro" and "macro" with regard to evolution. Advancement did. The difference is defined by the rate of evolutionary change and scope. Creationists, some with a motive, have latched on to an aspect of science to attempt giving their ideals thrust. I work under the knowledge that these human traits are not exclusive to "conservatives" and "creationists".

This line that "um, yes, the climate is changing but it's not us causing it" line sounds like a lot of hemming and hawing from people too stubborn to face facts.

With all due respect, this is a ridiculous characterization of the varying degrees of skepticism regarding "consensus science". How are you qualified in any way, shape, or form to define hemming, hawing, and stubbornness regarding the integrity of data? Simply put, garbage in is garbage out. Do you have the best interest of science in mind when you marginalize these arguments? Not only is the magnitude of human contribution ambiguous, the signs of human contributions themselves lack definition. For example;

From the IPCC TAR 12.2.3; Different models may give quite different patterns of response for the same forcing, but an individual model may give a surprisingly similar response for different forcings. The first point means that attribution studies may give different results when using signals generated from different models. The second point means that it may be more difficult to distinguish between the response to different factors than one might expect, given the differences in radiative forcing.

I just don't see; anthropogenic warming is a fact fool, get over it.

You mention the natural forces that drive climate change, and you're right to. The fact is that one of the most significant natural processes is precession and for thousands of years human activity has been pushing us AWAY from its cooling effects--effects, I might add, which are due to reverse.

I'd like to read more on this. Do you have a link on how human activity has pushed us AWAY from precessions' cooling effects?

Listen, we have liberated something like 10% of the planet's carbon stores into the atmosphere. We have a clear relationship between human activity and greenhouse gases that goes back millennia. Rice patty cultivation in Asia tracks with a rise in methane level which tracks with a reversal of the natural cooling cycle of precession. Similar connections can be drawn between the rise of slash and burn agriculture and CO2 levels.

The fact is you have precious little more than "we know GHGs warm" and "we see warming". Don't get me wrong, there's a whole bunch of data, but our lack of certainty on the indirect effects of aerosols is extremely important. Again, we know GHGs can cause warming and we see warming. Compelling, but definitely not certain. Other plausible mechanisms? You bet. We already know we've not been here forever and that the climate fluctuated prior to our walking with an upright gait. Obvious I know, but worth repeating. Just because we aren't there yet doesn't mean we need to force science. It follows that a body compiled to find human contributions to global climate change would find global climate change and human activity. I should clarify that I support and appreciate what the IPCC scientists themselves are doing as I can read their honesty in the studies themselves. What zealots have done with climate science is a bummer IMO.

Give science more time to flesh out other notions such as cosmic ray flux variations and solar contribution to warming.

Now, any reasonable person who is not struggling under the weight of some preexisting bias must look at this data and conclude what the scientific community as a whole has concluded: Human activity is altering the climate and has been for a long time.

So... just to be clear, the scientific community as a whole has concluded that human activity is altering global climate as in we're making it warmer? or cooler? or both?

I mean what if within the next 10 years it is affirmed that the climate is cooling? Do you remain open to the scientific method? After all, if humans were found not to have been a primary driver of global warming, wouldn't that indeed be good news??? To be clear, I'm certainly in favor of managing our energy use with discipline and awareness and that in fact we need to find ways off of fossil fuels altogether.

Given that, if we look forward to the rise in per capita energy consumption and production of likely greenhouse gas emission from China and India, then it is only reasonable to begin thinking about and discussing together what changes we should make in order to prepare for the challenges this will pose to us in the near future and to our posterity.

There are a great many challenges posed to us and several that are much more apparent IMO. History may judge us for creating a climatic boogeyman, forcing the hands of science, the hands of government, and the populace into policy that is hasty, sloppy, abusive, and lop-sided against prosperity... and at the absolute worst time. Just my .02

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wrong. They have almost without fail argued that climate change is driven primarily by natural variability. The "conservative side" is comprised of a wealth of diverse people with varying degrees of skepticism. They range from practicing scientists, to laypeople, politicians, and even those employed by the oil industry. The... I'm guessing "liberal side" (your logic) is also comprised of diverse people with varying degrees of support for the IPCC conclusion. Among them are scientists, laypeople, politicians, and even those employed by a host of green initiatives, publications, corporations, etc...

The overwhelming majority of scientists repeatedly cited as consensus authorities on manmade global warming are relatively silent. It simply follows there are those more or less passionate about the matter.


It is clear that this has become a partisan mantle for you. It makes sense that you'd invoke the creationists' "backsliding" angle. If you're unable to acknowledge a continuum from support to dissent seeing all things as either black or white, you'd have to compartmentalize the vocal into smaller boxes to make it simpler for you. Creationists didn't coin the terms "micro" and "macro" with regard to evolution. Advancement did. The difference is defined by the rate of evolutionary change and scope. Creationists, some with a motive, have latched on to an aspect of science to attempt giving their ideals thrust. I work under the knowledge that these human traits are not exclusive to "conservatives" and "creationists".


With all due respect, this is a ridiculous characterization of the varying degrees of skepticism regarding "consensus science". How are you qualified in any way, shape, or form to define hemming, hawing, and stubbornness regarding the integrity of data? Simply put, garbage in is garbage out. Do you have the best interest of science in mind when you marginalize these arguments? Not only is the magnitude of human contribution ambiguous, the signs of human contributions themselves lack definition. For example;

From the IPCC TAR 12.2.3; Different models may give quite different patterns of response for the same forcing, but an individual model may give a surprisingly similar response for different forcings. The first point means that attribution studies may give different results when using signals generated from different models. The second point means that it may be more difficult to distinguish between the response to different factors than one might expect, given the differences in radiative forcing.

I just don't see; anthropogenic warming is a fact fool, get over it.


I'd like to read more on this. Do you have a link on how human activity has pushed us AWAY from precessions' cooling effects?


The fact is you have precious little more than "we know GHGs warm" and "we see warming". Don't get me wrong, there's a whole bunch of data, but our lack of certainty on the indirect effects of aerosols is extremely important. Again, we know GHGs can cause warming and we see warming. Compelling, but definitely not certain. Other plausible mechanisms? You bet. We already know we've not been here forever and that the climate fluctuated prior to our walking with an upright gait. Obvious I know, but worth repeating. Just because we aren't there yet doesn't mean we need to force science. It follows that a body compiled to find human contributions to global climate change would find global climate change and human activity. I should clarify that I support and appreciate what the IPCC scientists themselves are doing as I can read their honesty in the studies themselves. What zealots have done with climate science is a bummer IMO.

Give science more time to flesh out other notions such as cosmic ray flux variations and solar contribution to warming.


So... just to be clear, the scientific community as a whole has concluded that human activity is altering global climate as in we're making it warmer? or cooler? or both?

I mean what if within the next 10 years it is affirmed that the climate is cooling? Do you remain open to the scientific method? After all, if humans were found not to have been a primary driver of global warming, wouldn't that indeed be good news??? To be clear, I'm certainly in favor of managing our energy use with discipline and awareness and that in fact we need to find ways off of fossil fuels altogether.


There are a great many challenges posed to us and several that are much more apparent IMO. History may judge us for creating a climatic boogeyman, forcing the hands of science, the hands of government, and the populace into policy that is hasty, sloppy, abusive, and lop-sided against prosperity... and at the absolute worst time. Just my .02

Maybe you've admitted all along that the climate is changing, but I have had many a squabble with skeptics who complained (falsely) that scientists were just as sure thirty years ago that the climate was cooling, concluding that scientists didn't know jack.

It's interesting that you urge for giving scientists more time...why not listen to the scientists? They're at a fever pitch that nothing is being done. Their conclusion, to answer your query, is that we are disrupting and short circuiting all those natural mechanisms you've referred to.

Short term, it's a safe bet that we're warming, but there scenarios under which that warming could trigger a feedback reaction that would lead to cooling.

Again, the bottom line is simple: We're screwing with the climate that has allowed our civilization to flourish for the last ten thousand years. Greenhouse gas emissions that were working in our favor for several thousand years are now accelerating beyond the point of reliable predictability. That unpredictability can mean only one thing: upheaval on a global scale.

How's that going to work for your precious prosperity?

On the other hand, how can policies that lead to less pollution and more efficient use of energy possibly be bad for us? Green technology isn't going to hobble prosperity. In fact, it will create a multiplier effect, generating new economic activity.

I really don't get you. You say you're willing to start managing our energy use responsibility and phase out fossil fuels...well, what the heck, then? That's what's being argued for.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

They have done that. Seriously, America is the last first-world country where the anthropogenic contribution to global climate change isn't widely accepted.

The problem is that if people who aren't experts in the field and/or not familiar with scientific methods (in particular scientific method as understood by natural sciences) who then criticize the findings based on the very simplistic explanation they have received. I'm not talking about people who want to know more, but people who `criticize.' Most of the time, the criticism can be addressed if that person goes into sufficient level of detail -- at the expense of being understood by a layman. And that's not because it is a failure of science, but simply because it's complicated.

That's what people with a Bachelor degree should know, yes. It says that, yes, in principle, you can start working as a scientist (after some additional education). But most people don't work as scientists afterwards.

Of course, if he or she continues down that path, yes. But just because you have your learner's permit doesn't mean you know how to drive, does it? However, if you stop taking driving lessons, you needn't use your basic skills to work scientifically.

Again, the problem is that you assume the data from this specific location enters the calculation and alters the conclusion. Usually surface temperatures are measured by a satellite. And yes, roads absorb more heat than other material -- but that is taken into account.

Even if (according to anyone's standard) a weather station has been correctly set up, some components still may fail and give faulty data. Do you think this case hasn't been taken into account? Of the thousands and thousands of weather stations, you can be sure that some of them are defective. These are fairly straightforward questions that have been addressed.

They do, taking uncertainties into account is one of the first things you learn in natural sciences. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are often even given separately. And you simply assume that this hasn't been done yet.

If the concrete belongs to the surface, then it is part of the surface whose temperature is being measured (as opposed to air temperature, of course). The tarmac doesn't alter the measurement, it changes the surface's ability to absorb heat -- which certainly influences the local weather.

I think our discussion boils down to a matter of definitions, and I will concede that the term "scientist" is subject to a lot of interpretation, especially when YOU are a working scientist and I am trained in philosophical exercises about queue theory. And I'm out of date by at least a decade, to boot.

But let's get to my real point. An enormous amount of weather data is gathered by simple stations set up by volunteers. Local grass strip airfields. Schools. Ham radio clubs. Lots of places in the U.S. report not only temperature but all sorts of other weather data to NOAA. There is NO OTHER way for NOAA to get wind and humidity data in most of these places. And there is a NOAA standard for siting observation equipment. In particular, NOAA states

Temperature sensor siting: The sensor should be mounted 5 feet +/- 1 foot above the ground. The ground over which the shelter [radiation] is located should be typical of the surrounding area. A level, open clearing is desirable so the thermometers are freely ventilated by air flow. Do not install the sensor on a steep slope or in a sheltered hollow unless it is typical of the area or unless data from that type of site are desired. When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface.

This sort of standard is used because it provides a uniform level of data accuracy. Because the data from such sites IS part of an important aggregation of data and DOES change the outcome, these standards are enforced and any data that is collected from noncompliant sites is not included in the aggregation. If aviation weather is important enough for really well controlled data collection, shouldn't climate change observations be that well controlled too? And if such measurements can be made so easily that high schools can provide real, reliable data that can affect safety of flight, shouldn't someone who purports to be reporting on climate change be held to that same standard? And if not, why not?

I should also point out that there are lots of examples of stating complex concepts in understandable language. For example, CERN's page on the Large Hadron Collider is really quite good at explaining what the LHC is supposed to do and why. This is what I meant when I spoke of explaining things. I don't need to know more than the fact that a hadron is a tiny particle that is a building block of larger particles, and that being able to create large hadrons is essential to understanding how matter works.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Seriously, America is the last first-world country where the anthropogenic contribution to global climate change isn't widely accepted.

Seriously, America (the US) is unique in many other ways as well. For example, many people in all of those other countries would love to live here. Also, our Constitutional system stands unique in its treatment of individual liberties. Perhaps, from a scientific standpoint, America's healthy skepticism is one of the crucial tenets of its raging success over the past couple of centuries.

Also, there may be healthy skepticism WRT global climate issues in the US because most of the rest of the world expects OUR TAXPAYERS to shell out the bucks to "fix" some problem that nobody can demonstrate exists. Whether that's in lost standard-of-living or actual cash, Kyoto and the other schemes exist to shuck us for bucks.

That creates wary consumers, IMHO.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Again, the bottom line is simple: We're screwing with the climate that has allowed our civilization to flourish for the last ten thousand years. Greenhouse gas emissions that were working in our favor for several thousand years are now accelerating beyond the point of reliable predictability. That unpredictability can mean only one thing: upheaval on a global scale.

Or, on the other hand, we're not screwing with anything and climate change is a natural event. HOWEVER if we pitch it as a CRISIS then people have to pay attention! We have to save the planet for the CHILDREN!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Or, on the other hand, we're not screwing with anything and climate change is a natural event. HOWEVER if we pitch it as a CRISIS then people have to pay attention! We have to save the planet for the CHILDREN!

You're right. It's a lot to ask for based on a "what if?" argument. And, yet, Iraq was invaded based on a "what if?" argument ...

[finboy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Among scientists, the debate for whether global warming is man-made is over.

Unless you're suggesting that they've found the debate superfluous and ended it for lack of unbiased evidence, there are plenty of scientists out here in the world of adults-who-do-this-stuff-for-a-living who think it's a big political joke. I know many of them personally (we don't work for the UN, though, so we may be objective). I suggest you get out more.

The thing with BS vs. scientist, etc. is a joke too. GH is one of the most level-headed people on here, and most of you would do well to take a listen to what he has to say on most topics. Even this one, I'd bet.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're right. It's a lot to ask for based on a "what if?" argument. And, yet, Iraq was invaded based on a "what if?" argument ...

Excellent example. Unrelated, but still excellent. The Bush Admin, Colin Powell and every major intelligence organization in the world thought that Iraq had WMDs, so we went to war because it was a CRISIS letting that bozo keep the ability to suitcase a city subway with nerve gas. The fact that it was a CRISIS made people pay attention.

As our Northern neighbors would say: "Beauty spot, eh?"

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Excellent example. Unrelated, but still excellent. The Bush Admin, Colin Powell and every major intelligence organization in the world thought that Iraq had WMDs, so we went to war because it was a CRISIS letting that bozo keep the ability to suitcase a city subway with nerve gas. The fact that it was a CRISIS made people pay attention.

As our Northern neighbors would say: "Beauty spot, eh?"

Ok, one big difference jumps out at me: The action they proposed was unreasonable and cost lives.

Honestly, where's the downside to energy independence and efficiency?!? I can't believe anyone's willing to fight on this one.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Or, on the other hand, we're not screwing with anything and climate change is a natural event. HOWEVER if we pitch it as a CRISIS then people have to pay attention! We have to save the planet for the CHILDREN!

If it's not us, then why do the natural precession cycle's effects on climate short circuit in lock-step with increased human agriculture?

That's an awfully big coincidence you're pitching there, bucko.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

But let's get to my real point. An enormous amount of weather data is gathered by simple stations set up by volunteers. Local grass strip airfields. Schools. Ham radio clubs. ... Because the data from such sites IS part of an important aggregation of data and DOES change the outcome, these standards are enforced and any data that is collected from noncompliant sites is not included in the aggregation.

You assume that this has not been taken into account and that these systematic measurement uncertainties you think haven't been taken into account properly change the conclusion. I'm not metrologist (I'm not even an experimentalist), so I cannot really tell you how these systematic uncertainties are taken into account, but taking care of systematic and statistical measurement uncertainties is one of the first things you have to learn (I didn't like it very much).

Also, systematic errors don't have to give you incorrect conclusions. If a thermometer always overestimates the temperature, but in a consistent way, then you can still confirm an upward or downward trend. Furthermore, measurements of such important quantities are usually done in several different ways (e. g. also by satellite) to make sure that you don't rely on a single data source.

The questions you raise here are so basic that they must have been taken into account long, long time ago (remember that these boxes are also used for local weather forecasts which are a lot, lot more sensitive to measurement uncertainties*).

* Long-time simulations use averages of temperature that fluctuate much less. Think of a diagram of hourly temperature, daily temperature, monthly temperature and yearly temperature: if you look at the hourly temperature, you can clearly see the correlation to the time of day. In daily temperature, you don't see this finer fluctuation, the mean temperature between days typically fluctuates less than the difference of temperatures between early morning and early afternoon, for example. If you go to an even coarser scale, then you see even less. Hence short-time fluctuations are actually more sensitive to these kinds of measurement uncertainties.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I should also point out that there are lots of examples of stating complex concepts in understandable language. For example, CERN's page on the Large Hadron Collider is really quite good at explaining what the LHC is supposed to do and why.

There are plenty of pages like that for global climate change. In fact, things like the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer are covered as early as in primary school. Have a look here for instance.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Seriously, America (the US) is unique in many other ways as well. For example, many people in all of those other countries would love to live here. Also, our Constitutional system stands unique in its treatment of individual liberties.

I was talking about first-world countries, not second and third-world countries. They don't want to come over in droves anymore, because they weren't free.

Originally Posted by finboy 

Perhaps, from a scientific standpoint, America's healthy skepticism is one of the crucial tenets of its raging success over the past couple of centuries.

Nope, America's success was that it used to attract the best who want to do research there and contribute to scientific progress. In quite a few fields America has already lost the lead -- in part due to what you call `healthy' scepticism (which is anything but).

[PaperNotes]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...r-friends.aspx

Last week, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies – one of four agencies responsible for monitoring the global temperatures used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – released its statistics for October. According to the GISS figures, last month was the warmest October on record around the world.
This struck some observers as odd. There had been no reports of autumn heat waves in the international press and there is almost always blanket coverage of any unusually warm weather since it fits into the widespread media bias that climate catastrophe lies just ahead. In fact, quite the opposite had occurred; there had been plenty of stories about unseasonably cool weather.

London had experienced its first October snow in 70 years. Chicago and the Great Plains states had broken several lowest-temperature records, some of which had stood for 120 years. Tibet had broken snowfall records. Glaciers in Alaska, the Alps and New Zealand had begun advancing. Sea ice expanded so rapidly it covered 30% more of Arctic than at the end of October 2007. (Of course, you saw few stories about that, too, since interest in the Arctic ice cover is reserved only for when its melting reinforces hysteria over global warming and polar bear extinction).
So the GISS claim that October was the warmest ever seemed counterintuitive, to say the least.
Thanks, though, to Steve McIntyre, the Toronto computer analyst who maintains the blog climateaudit.org, and Anthony Watts, the American meteorologist who runs wattsupwiththat.com, we did not have to wait long to find out the cause of the GISS’s startling statistics: Data-entry error.

October wasn’t the warmest October ever, it was only the 70th warmest in the past 114 years – in the bottom half of all Octobers, not at the top of the list. So why the massive discrepancy between the published GISS numbers and the correct ones?

[PaperNotes]

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/...limate-science

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Maybe you've admitted all along that the climate is changing, but I have had many a squabble with skeptics who complained (falsely) that scientists were just as sure thirty years ago that the climate was cooling, concluding that scientists didn't know jack.

The familiar articles had begun. In fact, cooling had been identified between the 1940's and 70's and while too little was known of this trend, it did not stop the hype from mounting in media about an impending ice age. The only sober reading would've been that of the scientists themselves, but that's no fun. The same remains true today.

It's interesting that you urge for giving scientists more time...why not listen to the scientists? They're at a fever pitch that nothing is being done. Their conclusion, to answer your query, is that we are disrupting and short circuiting all those natural mechanisms you've referred to.

There is no fever pitch in the scientific community. The most feverish of pitches are those in the public policy sector. Since you've laid yourself quite the broad foundation from which to argue anthropogenic contribution to climate change, I have a follow up question. To what degree has man contributed to warming and a link to affirm it? I'd like to read the "fever pitch".

Short term, it's a safe bet that we're warming, but there scenarios under which that warming could trigger a feedback reaction that would lead to cooling.

... then back again.

Again, the bottom line is simple: We're screwing with the climate that has allowed our civilization to flourish for the last ten thousand years. Greenhouse gas emissions that were working in our favor for several thousand years are now accelerating beyond the point of reliable predictability. That unpredictability can mean only one thing: upheaval on a global scale.

Conversely, you're attempting to screw with the very elements that have given the standards of "flourish" we have in civilization today. That unpredictability can mean only one thing: disaster??? It could also mean we're woefully lacking in certainty regarding the effects of indirect aerosols.

How's that going to work for your precious prosperity?

I'll be fine. Science on the other hand...

On the other hand, how can policies that lead to less pollution and more efficient use of energy possibly be bad for us? Green technology isn't going to hobble prosperity. In fact, it will create a multiplier effect, generating new economic activity.

The transition from current technologies to green technologies has got to remain disciplined and funded. Particularly now. An awful lot of employment and economic activity is founded on our current technologies and we've got to ween from one in a manner that will help fund building the other.

I really don't get you. You say you're willing to start managing our energy use responsibility and phase out fossil fuels...well, what the heck, then? That's what's being argued for.

"willing to start"? I don't think that's what I said. It would be particularly odd for me to say that as someone who already tries to manage my energy use. I think we should phase out the use of fossil fuels because first and foremost it is an expendable resource. There's nothing to suggest that it can sustain our energy needs from now to perpetuity. Let me tell you something, adding a carbon credit tax and thrusting policies that are not equitable on a global scale in fact will be as hasty and sloppy as pumping aerosols into the atmosphere in attempt to cool the planet. There are all kinds of bad ideas out there. Let's make sure we employ a little sobriety before meddling with the human condition at a time when it is particularly vulnerable.

Trust me, you'll thank me and others like me for our skepticism later. This is the integrity of science.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You assume that this has not been taken into account and that these systematic measurement uncertainties you think haven't been taken into account properly change the conclusion. I'm not metrologist (I'm not even an experimentalist), so I cannot really tell you how these systematic uncertainties are taken into account, but taking care of systematic and statistical measurement uncertainties is one of the first things you have to learn (I didn't like it very much).

Also, systematic errors don't have to give you incorrect conclusions. If a thermometer always overestimates the temperature, but in a consistent way, then you can still confirm an upward or downward trend. Furthermore, measurements of such important quantities are usually done in several different ways (e. g. also by satellite) to make sure that you don't rely on a single data source.

I'm assuming that anything not mentioned about a measurement either conforms to some standard, or doesn't conform and has not been disclosed. Yes, I'm a bit cynical here.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The questions you raise here are so basic that they must have been taken into account long, long time ago (remember that these boxes are also used for local weather forecasts which are a lot, lot more sensitive to measurement uncertainties*).

That is an assumption I will not make. Basic questions must be thoroughly answered. And if such questions are not answered thoroughly, it allows the sort of issue that I bring up here to fester. In any experiment or pseudoexperimental gathering of data, it is imperative to specify all conditions of the measurements, or those measurements are subject to dispute.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

There are plenty of pages like that for global climate change. In fact, things like the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer are covered as early as in primary school. Have a look here for instance.

The issue I was addressing was that it is not that difficult to present straightforward explanations for why even very complex inquiries need to be done. Yes, there are climate change explanations, just as there are explanations of gravity, nutrinos, and more. But you had said that some concepts were way too complicated to be explained this way, and that's why I pointed this out.

[PaperNotes]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4757411a1865.html

It is disturbing that many recent statements on climate change by influential people are not supported by hard evidence.
For instance, Professor Ralph Chapman's statement that the globe risks a tipping point if emissions are not reduced by 2015 is unsupported by hard evidence, as is David Parker's claim that if we do nothing to reduce emissions, New Zealand could be up to $500 million worse off by 2012.
This is not true because, if we adopt the Emissions Trading Scheme, electricity bills alone will increase by more than $500 million each year.
On Kyoto, lawyer Alistair Hercus recently claimed that "as a country we have to pay". In fact, the Kyoto protocol says nothing about enforcement and as yet there are no international emissions enforcers to act as judge, jury and executioner.
We can opt out of Kyoto whenever we like or, like most other countries, pretend to support the protocol and, at the same time, do little or nothing.
These statements and government policies on greenhouse gases, carbon trading and promoting renewable energy are based on the beliefs that the world is warming due to man-made greenhouse gases; that promoting renewable energy will make a substantial difference to New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions; and that if New Zealand reduces its greenhouse gas emissions it would affect the world climate. All these beliefs are not true....(read more)

[PaperNotes]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ANEN...FORAMERICA.pdf

[PaperNotes]

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/...limate-control

The Futile Quest for Climate Control
Robert M. Carter





The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels—the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming—has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article?

—Paul Johnson

(read more)

[PaperNotes]

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/...uilty-yet.html

[PaperNotes]

There's still no way of measuring or observing how CO2 moves through its natural and manmade cycle, therefore all climate models used to predict climate change are not based on science but on whims. Garbage in, garbage out.

They are only now starting to try to understand the carbon cycle

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11...o_launch_site/

[PaperNotes]

So if carbon dioxide isn't responsible for climate change, and it never has been, what is more likely the cause?

The two main culprits are:

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)



And Solar Activity



Both of which you can see are related and have a perfect relationship with climate change too.

Carbon dioxide emissions does not have the close relationship with climate change that we see in any historical or contemporary records.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

But even people I know who do accept that, whether or not millions of people will be displaced along the coasts in the coming century, there is anthropogenic warming are not taking significant steps to alter their energy consumption.

The climate change sceptics are not the ones who're fearful here. A couple of degrees here, a couple of degrees there. Nowt to be worried about (except perhaps hordes of unsightly flabby British women wearing less).

It's this simple:
The War On Terror™ is designed to scare those on the right.
Climate Change™ is designed to scare those on the left (who weren't scared by the terrorists).

It's all BS designed to keep you under control.

[PaperNotes]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7734547.stm

This decade has seen a near 3% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in industrialised western nations alone. If we include Brazil, China and India the number is double that.

Yet as we can see from the charts, temperature has been coming down for the last few years and we're in a global cooling phase that should last up to 20 years more.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

That is an assumption I will not make. Basic questions must be thoroughly answered. And if such questions are not answered thoroughly, it allows the sort of issue that I bring up here to fester. In any experiment or pseudoexperimental gathering of data, it is imperative to specify all conditions of the measurements, or those measurements are subject to dispute.

The thing is that this is outside of my area of expertise and I would have to read the details myself. But these are basic questions for metrologists, but questions regarding details are obviously omitted when you make a presentation to the general public.

Although it doesn't entirely fit the topic of the discussion, you can find a decent explanation of a modern weather forecast system here. This one is very popular with mountaineers because of its detail, precision and local resolution. You can see that newer models don't rely on weather stations as much (they improve the accuracy, but aren't needed, see pages 9 and 10 of the presentation). There is also a more scientific exposition with a bunch of acronyms I don't know Again, I'm not an expert, so for further questions, it might be a good idea to consult an expert. However, the WMO seems to have that covered in their Guide to Meteorological Instruments. They also cover the basics, like measurement uncertainties, quality control and guidelines. As you can see, this is all well-documented and basic stuff.

IMO the criticism you display is only constructive and useful if that particular person is willing to follow up on those questions. Some here (usually those who are critical of the scientific consensus) keep on throwing in what they think are inconsistencies or problems, but aren't really interested in following them up. It's just a technique to deflect.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The issue I was addressing was that it is not that difficult to present straightforward explanations for why even very complex inquiries need to be done. Yes, there are climate change explanations, just as there are explanations of gravity, nutrinos, and more. But you had said that some concepts were way too complicated to be explained this way, and that's why I pointed this out.

What I meant was that just like any of the other things in your list (gravity, neutrinos, the LHC), these straightforward explanations for laymen interested in the topic only barely scratch the surface. There is an abundance of material regarding simple explanations. Again, the problem comes when people (not necessarily you) make uneducated criticism of the theory (which is different from asking questions), i. e. they doubt the conclusion for no other reason than that the implications are not convenient.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Holy thread-spamming batman, good god

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

There's still no way of measuring or observing how CO2 moves through its natural and manmade cycle, therefore ...
They are only now starting to try to understand the carbon cycle

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

This decade has seen a near 3% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in industrialised western nations alone. If we include Brazil, China and India the number is double that.

So we go from there being 'no way' to measure CO2 movement from reservoirs to having (and quoting) detailed geographic and temporal data down to the specific country for CO2 emissions?

That's quite the scientific advancement over the course of 3 posts.

Also, those two graphs, aka 'The Charts', don't show what you think they do.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The familiar articles had begun. In fact, cooling had been identified between the 1940's and 70's and while too little was known of this trend, it did not stop the hype from mounting in media about an impending ice age. The only sober reading would've been that of the scientists themselves, but that's no fun. The same remains true today.


There is no fever pitch in the scientific community. The most feverish of pitches are those in the public policy sector. Since you've laid yourself quite the broad foundation from which to argue anthropogenic contribution to climate change, I have a follow up question. To what degree has man contributed to warming and a link to affirm it? I'd like to read the "fever pitch".


... then back again.


Conversely, you're attempting to screw with the very elements that have given the standards of "flourish" we have in civilization today. That unpredictability can mean only one thing: disaster??? It could also mean we're woefully lacking in certainty regarding the effects of indirect aerosols.


I'll be fine. Science on the other hand...


The transition from current technologies to green technologies has got to remain disciplined and funded. Particularly now. An awful lot of employment and economic activity is founded on our current technologies and we've got to ween from one in a manner that will help fund building the other.


"willing to start"? I don't think that's what I said. It would be particularly odd for me to say that as someone who already tries to manage my energy use. I think we should phase out the use of fossil fuels because first and foremost it is an expendable resource. There's nothing to suggest that it can sustain our energy needs from now to perpetuity. Let me tell you something, adding a carbon credit tax and thrusting policies that are not equitable on a global scale in fact will be as hasty and sloppy as pumping aerosols into the atmosphere in attempt to cool the planet. There are all kinds of bad ideas out there. Let's make sure we employ a little sobriety before meddling with the human condition at a time when it is particularly vulnerable.

Trust me, you'll thank me and others like me for our skepticism later. This is the integrity of science.

Really, ebuddy, I'm confused.

What is it you want?

You're arguing with me about carbon tax credits. I've said nothing about them.

You tell me I'm trying to screw the economy. I've explained that green investments will have multiplier effects and help the economy.

Then you tell me you want to get off oil anyway.

So you want me to look up links to convince you of something after you clearly aren't responding to me at all, but to some preconceived notion of what environmentalists want, and to top it all off, when you get right down to it, you agree with me.

Am I missing something?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The climate change sceptics are not the ones who're fearful here. A couple of degrees here, a couple of degrees there. Nowt to be worried about (except perhaps hordes of unsightly flabby British women wearing less).

It's this simple:
The War On Terror™ is designed to scare those on the right.
Climate Change™ is designed to scare those on the left (who weren't scared by the terrorists).

It's all BS designed to keep you under control.

But I don't see people motivated by fear of climate change as behaving fearful. Terrorism is used as a boogeyman to urge people to bow to authority. Climate change concerns demand action against authority.

It's quite apples to oranges, if you ask me.

Also, there's obviously much more at stake than how much British flab you have to see. Climate change affects weather and agriculture. We could be looking at large scale human displacement and food shortages. That's worth thinking about.

We can be vigilant against terrorism and we can be proactive about our energy consumption without giving into fear. Let's be reasonable about both.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ANEN...FORAMERICA.pdf

I read this. The plan itself--regardless of the author's point of view on global warming--sounds pretty good. Except, why coal? Even if there's no global warming problem, coal mining is destructive and messy and dangerous. Why not just expand renewables like solar and wind to create this foundation for hydorgen?

See, it's like I keep saying: There is no downside to developing a clean energy infrastructure. Why are you people arguing against it?!?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

But I don't see people motivated by fear of climate change as behaving fearful.

That's purely your own perception tuning out the facts then.
From where I'm standing, you're all running around with something approaching hysteria.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Also, there's obviously much more at stake than how much British flab you have to see. Climate change affects weather and agriculture. We could be looking at large scale human displacement and food shortages. That's worth thinking about.

Right. Just spent 0.00002 seconds thinking about that.
More CO2 and warmth = more food.

Someone really ought to have told the warmingists that plants actually thrive on CO2 and heat - it's why we pump commercial greenhouses full of the stuff.

[auto_immune]

The Case For Skeptcism On Global Warming

"Michael's detailed explanation of why he criticizes global warming scenarios. Using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified to spend vast sums on this speculative issue when around the world people are dying of starvation and disease."

[auto_immune]

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.......

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Really, ebuddy, I'm confused.

Let me try to explain. What started this portion of our exchange was the following;

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There are a great many challenges posed to us and several that are much more apparent IMO. History may judge us for creating a climatic boogeyman, forcing the hands of science, the hands of government, and the populace into policy that is hasty, sloppy, abusive, and lop-sided against prosperity... and at the absolute worst time. Just my .02

This was simply a statement, loosely aligned with your statement on posterity. I mentioned how history may judge us then concluded with; "just my .02".

You followed up with;

Originally Posted by Helmling

Again, the bottom line is simple: We're screwing with the climate that has allowed our civilization to flourish for the last ten thousand years. Greenhouse gas emissions that were working in our favor for several thousand years are now accelerating beyond the point of reliable predictability. That unpredictability can mean only one thing: upheaval on a global scale.

How's that going to work for your precious prosperity?

If the little question posed at the end of your statement was not supposed to be construed as argumentative I apologize, but it certainly appeared to be.

What is it you want?

Separation of science and State.

You're arguing with me about carbon tax credits. I've said nothing about them.

You don't have to. What you've said is;

Originally Posted by Helmling

Scientists are at a fever pitch that nothing is being done.

Originally Posted by Helmling

That unpredictability can mean only one thing: upheaval on a global scale.

Originally Posted by Helmling

We could be looking at large scale human displacement and food shortages.

This is all code-speak for; "Unless we do something drastic (usually implied is 'at the Federal level'. After all, it is hard to garner voluntary support for such measures), we will not have acted fast enough against impending doom!" Now, if all you're saying is that we face impending doom therefore we might simply consider investing in green technologies as a personal financial venture while weening from an expendable resource, then fine.

Though, the urgency in your tone regarding the problem doesn't really jive with your proposed solution.

You tell me I'm trying to screw the economy. I've explained that green investments will have multiplier effects and help the economy.

That's fine and I applaud this. The good news is you don't need anyone's help to invest in green technologies. I will say this however, the rhetoric you're espousing does not sound like someone who would simply like to do his own part to invest in a burgeoning business venture while weening from an expendable resource.

So you want me to look up links to convince you of something after you clearly aren't responding to me at all, but to some preconceived notion of what environmentalists want, and to top it all off, when you get right down to it, you agree with me.

Am I missing something?

You might be.

• I disagree with the notion that Scientists are at a fever pitch that nothing is being done.
• I don't believe greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating to any degree that would lead to global upheaval.
• I don't believe we could be looking at large scale human displacement and food shortages. At least not due to any human-induced climatic fiasco.
• I question the notion that for thousands of years human activity has been pushing us AWAY from the cooling effects of a cyclical, 25 million year precession.

I believe those who seek to marginalize questions, challenges, and problems while using absolutist rhetoric such as "the bottom line is", "you can't face facts", and relegating varying degrees of skepticism to nothing more than "conservatives", and "creationists"; are more concerned about political climate than global climate or even science in general.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

IMO the criticism you display is only constructive and useful if that particular person is willing to follow up on those questions. Some here (usually those who are critical of the scientific consensus) keep on throwing in what they think are inconsistencies or problems, but aren't really interested in following them up. It's just a technique to deflect.

I think it goes beyond that. Being a good consumer of data requires this sort of "full disclosure" of the circumstances under which the data was collected, and if that disclosure isn't there, the data consumer is left to wonder.

My current professional program (MS in occupational therapy) included several courses on research, including a basic statistics course. Not because we would be conducting our own detailed statistical analysis of the data we'd collect while doing research, but because we needed to know both why solid data collection was important and what important statistical questions to ask. Compared to my engineering stats class, this one was less math-intensive (was still had to compute a number of interesting values) but far more focused on why one collects data and how it must be collected for it to be valid.

I'm a PITA when it comes to "surveys show that...." news reports, because I poke holes in the reporting, and possibly the survey itself. And when someone (individual or organization) presents climatological data as being representative of a specific locale, I really expect that data to have been collected in such a way that it is indeed representative of the whole locale, not one very highly biased site. I guess you could call me a "data consumer advocate" because I demand high quality data and actually enjoy pointing out when someone is (apparently at least) scamming with their data.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What I meant was that just like any of the other things in your list (gravity, neutrinos, the LHC), these straightforward explanations for laymen interested in the topic only barely scratch the surface. There is an abundance of material regarding simple explanations. Again, the problem comes when people (not necessarily you) make uneducated criticism of the theory (which is different from asking questions), i. e. they doubt the conclusion for no other reason than that the implications are not convenient.

Scratching the surface is almost always more than enough for the layman. And it lays the foundation for explaining the more complex features that get glossed over with the first explanation. For example, look at this:

The microphone picks up sound waves and converts them into electrical signals. When the transmitter is "keyed" or actively sending out a radio signal, those electrical signals from the microphone cause the transmitted signal to change in accordance with the sound entering the microphone. A receiver will pick up the radio signal and decode the sound signal from it, reproducing the original sounds.

Here I didn't even say what kind of radio system I was discussing, yet I was complete and accurate in describing how it works. By building up layer upon layer of abstraction, one can explain even the most complex concepts (given enough layers, that is!). Isaac Azimov was very good about that sort of thing. So was Carl Sagan. And interestingly enough, I've found that by attempting to produce such explanations, I've cleaned up my own understanding of what I have tried to explain.

[OreoCookie]

Aren't you satisfied with the material I've linked to? It shows that these questions are old and have been taken into account. That was your original question, wasn't it? As I said, how to collect data is something taught to all natural scientists. If it is taught to PTs, what makes you think it's not taught to other scientists? Also, we're not talking about news polls here, but scientific studies that are subject to scrutiny by peers, i. e. other experts who know their stuff.

I still can't help but get the distinct impression that scientific theories which make inconvenient predictions are usually the subject of such scrutiny. Other recommendations made on statistical grounds are readily accepted, e. g. that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer or that always wearing a seat belt statistically saves lives. Obviously it's a matter of contention how much more likely it is to contract lung cancer if you're a smoker, but it doesn't change that the general statement is widely accepted.

Originally Posted by ghporter

Here I didn't even say what kind of radio system I was discussing, yet I was complete and accurate in describing how it works. By building up layer upon layer of abstraction, one can explain even the most complex concepts (given enough layers, that is!). Isaac Azimov was very good about that sort of thing. So was Carl Sagan. And interestingly enough, I've found that by attempting to produce such explanations, I've cleaned up my own understanding of what I have tried to explain.

Of course you can do that and for people who have a genuine interest, this also works for things like global climate change. One could easily throw your explanation of how a radio works offtrack by asking questions that have an answer (but aren't necessarily connected to the theory of radio transmissions). E. g. how come I can only communicate within the line of sight if I use certain frequencies, but I can get half-way around the globe using others? Why are only waves of certain frequencies reflected by clouds or the atmosphere? I heard photons are particles, not waves, what about that? How does an antenna work if it has to detect particles, shouldn't the length and shape of the antenna be relatively insignificant? Knowing the answers to these questions, I know what to ask to get you into unfamiliar terrain (e. g. quantum mechanics), although I don't doubt for a second that you know your stuff when it comes to radios.

In case of a radio, you obviously have a proof of concept that `it works' and that's that. In more complicated situations you don't have such an easy proof of concept. The weather forecast is a good example, to most it simply is a black box and for all some people care, there could be chicken bones inside and a voodoo ritual necessary to tell you whether it will rain tomorrow or not. Whether a `weather forecast system' works or not is not a question with a simple answer (as you can see from the slides I've linked to).

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I read this. The plan itself--regardless of the author's point of view on global warming--sounds pretty good. Except, why coal? Even if there's no global warming problem, coal mining is destructive and messy and dangerous. Why not just expand renewables like solar and wind to create this foundation for hydorgen?

I'm up from getting energy from all sources. The Greens and this Baz guy who got elected are not though. They are for creating mass bankruptcies so that government can take over private sectors one bit at a time - first banking, then the energy sector, then the automobile industry, then this, then that, until everyone becomes a government dependent prisoner.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Also, those two graphs, aka 'The Charts', don't show what you think they do.

Go ahead and explain, Radicalboi II. Everyone sees through you anyway.

[PaperNotes]

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpre...e_wij_23_4.pdf

[PaperNotes]

Making money out of thin air

The UK government today begins its emissions trading scheme by auctioning four million carbon emission allowances, despite no evidence that carbon dioxide has any noticeable effect on global warming and we're seeing a cooling planet. The government is expected to net £72 million today alone from businesses across the UK.

Between 2008 and 2012 about 85 million allowances will be auctioned which is estimated to raise £1.6 billion. After 2013 the UK government is expected to net £6 billion a year from businesses.

Businesses will naturally respond by raising prices, passing on the costs of carbon trading to consumers. Consumers worldwide, already hit by the credit crunch engineered by leading Democrats and grassroots radical organisations such as ACORN, will be further impoverished while the rich get richer and government gets bigger.

With less money in consumer pockets, many industries will feel hit from above and below and face bankruptcy. This is where big government will step in and nationalise more and more of the private sector - burying innovation and free thinking in a mountain of bureaucracy and turning the nation into an army of non-thinking civil servants.

Democratic accountability, elections, and free speech will slowly be eroded away in favour of a heavily technologised totalitarian governance that will make the Russians, Chinese and Arabs more happy to work with Western nations, because they will never again have pressure put on them by free nations to reform and democratise themselves.

Now more than ever we are faced with an evil that threatens to end liberty all across the world. The government and media are no longer on your side. You only have two ways left to express your anger - Information Technology and Direct Physical Action against politicians and Radical (Green or Communist) groups who support big government ideas or climate change propaganda.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

However, the WMO seems to have that covered in their Guide to Meteorological Instruments. They also cover the basics, like measurement uncertainties, quality control and guidelines. As you can see, this is all well-documented and basic stuff.

Your link is dead. *edited to include; nevermind. link finally came up. I'll read it when I get back.

What is well known are the inherent flaws of the instrumentation particularly due to the affects of UHI and LULC.

IMO the criticism you display is only constructive and useful if that particular person is willing to follow up on those questions. Some here (usually those who are critical of the scientific consensus) keep on throwing in what they think are inconsistencies or problems, but aren't really interested in following them up. It's just a technique to deflect.

What's there to follow up on? The fact is there are substantial flaws in stations themselves. There is no evidence to suggest these sites are being QCd to even know what differences would need to be reconciled. the USHCN has been in existence since 1994 and in 14 years have yet to conduct a site-by-site survey to establish what local influences may play a factor in the climate data returns. Small things like; a site enveloped by concrete, large bodies of water, air conditioners, vehicles, etc... all play a part in skewing the data. An independent effort has begun and with over 500 sites surveyed found only 4% in compliance with the standards set by NOAA. The NOAA standards as follows;
US CRN Site information Handbook

A total of 69% of these sites were found to have serious flaws with warming bias due to UHI and LULC and they've only just begun.
http://www.surfacestations.org/

What I meant was that just like any of the other things in your list (gravity, neutrinos, the LHC), these straightforward explanations for laymen interested in the topic only barely scratch the surface. There is an abundance of material regarding simple explanations.

There are also incidents of scientists and laypeople alike trying to invoke FOI just to get their hands on the source code for modeling, (with subsequent fudge filters for bugs-unpublished) and to get the actual statistical analysis and/or methodology used for reconciling irregularities.

Again, the problem comes when people (not necessarily you) make uneducated criticism of the theory (which is different from asking questions), i. e. they doubt the conclusion for no other reason than that the implications are not convenient.

Conversely, it is hardly in the interest of science to marginalize these problems. That is what is being done both in rhetoric (such as the above) and in practice. This is unfortunate.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are also incidents of scientists and laypeople alike trying to invoke FOI just to get their hands on the source code for modeling, (with subsequent fudge filters for bugs-unpublished) and to get the actual statistical analysis and/or methodology used for reconciling irregularities.

I'll repost this from before

 

Geophysial Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - NOAA - flexible modeling system

Global Forecast Model developed at National Center for Environmental Prediction, National Weather Service

The Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) Download Page

Goddard Institute for Space Sciences - Model E

Los Alamos National Lab - The Parallel Ocean Program (POP)

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - OASIS 3

The google search was only 1% of the work I had to do to find that. The other 5 minutes was rote copy and paste.

[/QUOTE]
You've seen this before. You had a nice response noting possible shortcomings in each model. Not bad for something which is shielded behind a FOI shield.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What is well known are the inherent flaws of the instrumentation particularly due to the affects of UHI and LULC.

UHI? LULC? I'll respond once you expand those acronyms

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What's there to follow up on? The fact is there are substantial flaws in stations themselves. There is no evidence to suggest these sites are being QCd to even know what differences would need to be reconciled.

Again, you assume that the data that is collected at small weather stations enters without any further ado and/or that data is taken without cross-checking via different measurement methods. Cross-checking means in this case that scientists usually do not rely on one single way to measure a quantity. There aren't many weather stations installed in the Sahara, yet we can predict the weather there, too (insert `sunny and warm' joke here).

In large-scale climate simulations that are used to predict global weather patterns, the cell size is much larger than what individual weather stations cover. So even if you have local variations, these variations do not enter at all, because of the large grid size. Even if they enter for more local simulations, meteorologists have plenty of experience dealing with these inaccuracies as they have done weather forecasts for many, many years now. (Although more modern techniques for weather forecasting do not necessarily rely on local weather stations anymore, see one of my previous links.) If you are so inclined, you can read a more detailed analysis here (this may be interesting for you, too, Glenn).

In any case, weather forecasts and climate predictions are two entirely different beasts. As explained before, climate predictions are on another scale and local behavior is not important. The grid size for the simulations is much larger than for a weather forecast. The fluctuations are much smaller. And simulations are interpreted statistically, i. e. you do not use one fixed set of initial conditions and go home.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are also incidents of scientists and laypeople alike trying to invoke FOI just to get their hands on the source code for modeling, (with subsequent fudge filters for bugs-unpublished) and to get the actual statistical analysis and/or methodology used for reconciling irregularities.

What does FOI stand for?
In any case, I don't understand how that is a response to my question? What are fudge filters for bugs? What about the fact that different simulations yield the same trend (they don't all have the same bug)? Why would bugs, if present, all tend to predict that there is a significant anthropogenic component to global warming? You don't make a lot of sense to me here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conversely, it is hardly in the interest of science to marginalize these problems. That is what is being done both in rhetoric (such as the above) and in practice. This is unfortunate.

Marginalized? I don't think they are marginalized at all.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Aren't you satisfied with the material I've linked to? It shows that these questions are old and have been taken into account.

I have no problem with what you linked. My problem is that there are still a bunch of people passing themselves off as "experts" and spouting tons of stuff that may or may not be accurate, and in the case of taking temperature measurements from cement pads, I think they're at least potentially trying to mislead people. Those sorts of measurements are great for things like proving that building cities out of concrete is a bad thing, or that cities tend to be heat islands that affect the weather around them. These measurements do not, however, reflect actual weather conditions and thus have little to do with climate. I simply want people to be aware that charlatans and well-meaning people who don't quite know what they're doing can present information that may or may not be accurate or valid.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I still can't help but get the distinct impression that scientific theories which make inconvenient predictions are usually the subject of such scrutiny. Other recommendations made on statistical grounds are readily accepted, e. g. that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer or that always wearing a seat belt statistically saves lives. Obviously it's a matter of contention how much more likely it is to contract lung cancer if you're a smoker, but it doesn't change that the general statement is widely accepted.

And you can tell a person that there are billions of stars in the sky, yet he'll always touch the thing with the "wet paint" sign on it. I believe that "inconvenient" science must work very hard at proving itself specifically because of the inconvenience its predictions would impose. By working doubly hard at demonstrating the validity of the predictions, people who work in such sciences can make sure that their work is appreciated (if not "fully understood"). Otherwise, well-funded nay-sayers will have the unfettered opportunity to discount those predictions and continue taking advantage of people's lack of knowledge (like the oil industry, for example).

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Of course you can do that and for people who have a genuine interest, this also works for things like global climate change. One could easily throw your explanation of how a radio works offtrack by asking questions that have an answer (but aren't necessarily connected to the theory of radio transmissions). E. g. how come I can only communicate within the line of sight if I use certain frequencies, but I can get half-way around the globe using others? Why are only waves of certain frequencies reflected by clouds or the atmosphere? I heard photons are particles, not waves, what about that? How does an antenna work if it has to detect particles, shouldn't the length and shape of the antenna be relatively insignificant? Knowing the answers to these questions, I know what to ask to get you into unfamiliar terrain (e. g. quantum mechanics), although I don't doubt for a second that you know your stuff when it comes to radios.

Valid points. These issues get into areas that a lot of people have difficulty with. The frequency issues are pretty straightforward; I used to work with HF systems and I can talk at length about the ionosphere's effects and how they change with the seasons and the time of day at both the local and distant ends. I can also address troposhperic scatter type systems which use much higher frequencies and how the troposphere changes propagation. However, when you get into the real meat of quantum theory and how electromagnetic signals actually work, I get into trouble. "Wavicles" are slippery things, and while I can deal with the fairly benign descriptions of E waves and M waves in free space, waveguides are another matter-I don't have nearly the experience to be able to explain them.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In case of a radio, you obviously have a proof of concept that `it works' and that's that. In more complicated situations you don't have such an easy proof of concept. The weather forecast is a good example, to most it simply is a black box and for all some people care, there could be chicken bones inside and a voodoo ritual necessary to tell you whether it will rain tomorrow or not. Whether a `weather forecast system' works or not is not a question with a simple answer (as you can see from the slides I've linked to).

Weather forecasting has a proof of concept that has been in place for more than a century. Computers just put a lot more observations together and provide a bigger (longer-range) picture. A decent meteorologist can show how air masses interact and thus cause the weather we experience, and can use the simple abstraction of "hundreds of small observation stations, all taking the same sort of readings all in the same way" to show how the picture of these air masses is constructed. We pass those observations via the Internet rather than telegraph, but there isn't much difference in how the observations are used today, except that it's done with a computer instead of a lot of pencils and paper.

[OreoCookie]

Have a look at the link I've posted in my reply to ebuddy, I'm sure it'll be to your liking (not sure if you have access, if you don't I can mail you the document on request).

I'll write a reply later.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Have a look at the link I've posted in my reply to ebuddy, I'm sure it'll be to your liking (not sure if you have access, if you don't I can mail you the document on request).

I'll write a reply later.

I'll check out that link. And I think we've done our part to sort of keep this particular thread on topic (at least somewhat). Maybe this is material for a separate, maybe Lounge, thread?

[OreoCookie]

Sounds like a good idea.